To be fair, I did call him a liar. I suppose it would have been more appropriate (in more ways than one) to say he is known to lie.
WHY the thought in your mind is the same??????
MY my,,,,we keep going further down in the gutter.........
Having said that,,,really hope you have a nice Thanksgiving Holiday!
Quite true, the conversation (if you can call it that) keeps going further into the gutter. Frothingslosh makes offensive remarks against the person to inflame the conversation instead of respecting the viewpoints of others who do not agree with his viewpoints. Furthermore to support his accusations Frothingslosh purposely
misconstrues what others have stated in an incendiary demeaning manner. Frothingslosh appears to be more enamored with tossing smug self-righteous "
hand-grenades" against the person, as a distraction, from discussing the topic at hand.
So, because French and Belgian natives launched the terror attacks in Paris, you want to force Syrian refugees to stay in the areas where they're being slaughtered. Brilliant.
I'm gaining weight, so you need to stop smoking.
See how dumb your logic is?
A bogus re-characterization that goes beyond what was stated by me. Note the offensive derogatory comment that followed: "
See how dumb your logic is?".
Seriously, Steve, you really should do your research before posting crap like that. You just sound like a Fox News shill
A groundless response by Frothingslosh that refuses to acknowledge the source of my facts. See my response below.
The problem is that no matter how many facts I supply, you will still maintain that they are faulty in some manner since only your so-called facts will count as the truth.
Furthermore: Please explain how you supposedly know that my facts come from Fox News? The sources cited below, as you will note, are not from Fox News.
Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester
White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester
Obama’s Most Successful Lie!
Obama condemns the very sequester he proposed, complemented, and then signed into law. Also note that the economic collapse Obama predicted, never occurred. Obama speech boils down to mean spirited fear-mongering. U-tube video:
Obama Sequester FULL Speech: Republicans Are Putting Economy At Risk To Help The Wealthy
BladeRunner, below notes, the arrogance of Frothingslosh in assuming that his "
facts" are the only reasonable "
facts". Cherry picking facts is a known strategy to bias an argument. Frothingslosh is free to do that; but, as BladeRunner correctly points out: "
Those facts depend upon which side of the tracks you are on...". Frothingslosh needs to accept (but does not have to agree) that the facts of others constitute legitimate comments.
Ah, yes, you cannot refute my response because they are all provable facts, so you'll just say I'm wrong, provide no examples, and leave.
Got it.
Those facts depend upon which side of the tracks you are on and you know we are polar opposites.
You're wrong Frothy:
Ah, so instead you're just falling into full-blown islamophobia, scapegoating all Muslims for the actions of a few. They were neither Syrians nor refugees.
The use of inflammatory accusations that are concocted.
Yeah, Blade has just lost his freaking mind and shown everyone what a miserable excuse for a human being he really is at this point.
He has apparently also lost the ability to speak coherently.
Vile demeaning diatribe.
Good catch, ALC.
What I see the progressive left chipping away at are:
- Officially sanctioned homophobia
- Officially sanctioned racism
- The right of the police to kill whomever they want without oversight or repercussion
- The Right's attempts to eliminate the entire First Amendment (via PATRIOT, pushes to put Creationism into schoolbooks, calls to track, exclude, and/or imprison people for their religious beliefs, etc)
- Officially sanctioned xenophobia
- The slow but ongoing corruption of Capitalism to American Capitalism, the conversion of the Republic into an Oligarchy, and the creeping institutionalization of economic serfdom
- The Religious Reich's ongoing attempts to convert America into a theocracy
- The GOP's relentless assaults on voting rights
If those are the US values Steve holds so highly, then I cannot help but argue that we're better off without those particular values.
I never stated that I hold any of values listed above. So how does Frothingslosh legitimately claim that I hold those views? Can he somehow read my mind? Should I label Frothingslosh, with great indignation, a liar?
This list above was simply added for the disingenuous purpose of making a misleading assertions that vilify the viewpoints of conservatives. Beside not contributing to the topic at hand. Furthermore, Frothingslosh complains that others don't provide evidence of their assertions. Where is the evidence that the list cited above represents the official talking points of conservatives?
The list above, is simply a list of fanatical leftist opinions, not supported facts.
Additionally, free speech is selectively applied. If you are for LGBT rights, that is endorsed free speech that is profusely complimented. Verbally question LGBT rights, you are automatically designated a bigot. Even worse, you may be found guilty of hate speech and end-up in jail.
(emphasis added)
Proof of someone being jailed for verbally questioning LGBT rights or be exposed for the liar you are.
I used the word "
may", yet Frothingslosh improperly asserts that if I can not document an example, that I am somehow a liar as an offensive provocation.
Study: Nearly half of Millennials not always on board with free speech
"According to a study from the Pew Research Center, 40% of people surveyed between the ages of 18 and 34 think offensive statements made about minorities should be federally regulated. Fifty-eight percent, however, defended First Amendment rights."
Federal regulation,
if imposed, would be one more incremental step in the trend towards limiting free speech and the possible imposition of fines and jail time.
In the post below, note the emergence of the concept "
microaggression". Which could be considered a step toward making speech considered "
offensive" a crime based on the article above.
America’s higher education brought low"
Melissa Click is the University of Missouri academic who shouted “I need some muscle over here” to prevent a photojournalist from informing the public about a public demonstration intended to influence the public. ... The University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, an irony-free campus, declared the phrase “politically correct” a microaggression."
While the following involves a Canadian:
Man Faces 6 Months in Jail For Disagreeing With Feminists on Twitter it can be viewed as part of a nascent trend.
"A Canadian man faces 6 months in jail for disagreeing with feminists on Twitter, a case that one journalist warns “could have enormous fallout for free speech. 54-year-old Greg Elliott could be charged with criminal harassment simply for expressing his opposition to a campaign by activists Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly to publicly shame a young man in Northern Ontario.”
It Begins! Montana Man Being Prosecuted for 'Hate Speech' and Holocaust Denial
"Via Volokh Conspiracy, a disturbing criminal case out of Montana, where Flathead County resident David Lenio, 28, is being prosecuted for making disparaging remarks about Jews on Twitter and denying that the Holocaust happened."
Free speech is under attack in Wisconsin
"The John Doe investigation illustrated the dangers free speech faces today. Based on an unconstitutional legal theory — one the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled was "unsupported in either reason or law" — government agents reportedly stormed the homes of private citizens in pre-dawn raids, seized their electronics, denied their right to speak with an attorney, and in at least one case held a child without allowing him to see or speak to his parents — all because they took an active interest in public policy.
...
Think about that for a second. Just because these private citizens hold certain political beliefs, they were identified, harassed and intimidated. This is precisely what government reporting laws would enable. As these examples illustrate, it has nothing to do with transparency and everything to do with silencing opponents."
Student says Cal Poly Pomona is trying to silence his vegan campaign
"Although virtually all academics say they support freedom of speech, many also argue that campuses have good cause to be sensitive to activities that could provoke vulnerable young adults. Colleges are charged with protecting the personal safety of students and must juggle the interplay of sexual, racial and ethnic dynamics that could lead to charges of harassment or bullying and potential lawsuits.
Many colleges have adopted policies — such as restricting protests and other activism to certain campus locations and enforcing broadly defined speech codes — that civil libertarians say violate the 1st Amendment rights of students.
...
A recent report by an advocacy group, however, found that more than 55% of the nation's top public and private universities maintained policies that prohibit protected speech."
The word "
sensitive" above constitutes "
code" to potentially allow adverse administrative action to be taken against a person who is practicing free speech that some people of authority may subjectively consider "
offensive".
The Anti-Free-Speech Movement at UCLA
"Today, activists at UCLA are demanding that administrators punish some of their fellow students for expressive behavior that is clearly protected by the First Amendment."
Like the word "
sensitive" above, the word "
punish", is more explicit "
code" to potentially allow adverse administrative action to be taken against a person who is practicing free speech that some people of authority may subjectively consider "
offensive". Who knows, "
punish" could morph a crime requiring jail time. Then again, maybe people will see the issue of "
microagression" as a falsehood and it will die.
Smith College to review media access policies following press ban at student protest
"Smith College is reviewing its media access policies after student protesters last week banned reporters from covering a sit-in unless they expressed solidarity with the movement. ... Similar to rules enforced at the University of Missouri and other campuses nationwide, media members were not allowed to cover the sit-in unless they openly supported the movement, MassLive reported."
Of course, I have selected "
proof" which supports my assertions. I trust that Frothingslosh appreciates the fact that I have done my own research and not cited Fox News as a source of information. Frothingslosh, of course is free to find his own "
proof" that may refute my facts. Hopefully, it can be done without descending into the gutter.
I did take time-off to make an apple pie totally from scratch. Happy Thanksgiving to all.